<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (3) TMI 310 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325126</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the deletions made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding unexplained differences in sales value, commission payments, technical fee payments, and royalty payments. The disputed items were considered already included in the total turnover, leading to the disallowances being deleted. The Tribunal rejected the Assessing Officer&#039;s arguments and approved the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions, partially allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2016 11:06:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=419744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 310 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325126</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the deletions made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding unexplained differences in sales value, commission payments, technical fee payments, and royalty payments. The disputed items were considered already included in the total turnover, leading to the disallowances being deleted. The Tribunal rejected the Assessing Officer&#039;s arguments and approved the CIT(A)&#039;s decisions, partially allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325126</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>